Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (12) TMI 221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 644 (Tri. - Del.) - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bill of Entry is not in the name of the appellant - services do not qualify as input service as per Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- payment towards the said capital goods have been paid by the appellant only and the capital goods is physically available in the premises of the appellant. Therefore, merely wrong mention of the name in the Bill of Entry Cenvat Credit cannot be d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s correct. Therefore, Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services is entitled to the appellant. - appellant has taken Cenvat Credit correctly. Therefore, impugned demands i.e. duty and interest are not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/52284, 52551/2015-ST(SM) - Final Order Nos. 52699-52700/2015-ST(SM) - Dated:- 27-8-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Rupinder Singh, Adv For the Respondent : Shri R K Grover, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the capital was sought to be denied on the premises that Bill of Entry is not in the name of the appellant. The input service credit on the following services were also sought to be denied on the premises that these services do not qualify as input service as per Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules: a) Business Chamber Association Services b) Horticulture Services c) After Sale Services (commission paid to the services) d) Outward Goods Transportation Agency Services. 3. Aggrieved from the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Cenvat Credit sought to be denied as these are not input services, in fact, all these services have been used by the appellant in the course of the business of their manufacturing activity. With regard to the GTA services he submits that he sold the goods to buyer on FOR basis and audit team has inspected the same. Moreover, in reply to the show cause notice they have clearly mentioned that they are selling goods on FOR basis but Adjudicating Authority has not given any finding thereon. Therefo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t goods have been sold by them on FOR basis. Therefore, he supported the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 7. In this case Cenvat Credit of ₹ 2,71,573/- was sought to be denied on the premise that the Bill of Entry is in the name of the EOU and not in the name of the appellant. In fact, the name of 100% EOU is wrongly mentioned by the appellant which has been explained. The payment towards the said capital goods have been paid by the appellant only and the ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version